Hope et al. v. Commissioner (S.D. Ind. 2019)
Federal trial court holding that Indiana’s SORA was unconstitutional on the grounds that it infringed Plaintiffs’ Right to Travel, denied them Equal Protection, and constituted an impermissible Ex Post Facto law.
In re T.B. (Colo. App. 2019)
Colorado Court of Appeals holding that requiring lifetime registration for juveniles adjudicated of sex offenses constitutes punishment for Eighth Amendment purposes, and remanded the case for consideration of whether the Eighth Amendment is violated when the state mandates lifetime sex offense registration for juveniles.
United States v. Haymond (U.S. 2019)
United States Supreme Court opinion holding unconstitutional a provision of federal law that mandated imprisonment for preponderance findings that new crimes had been committed while on supervised release.
Gundy v. United States (U.S. 2019)
United States Supreme Court opinion holding that federal SORNA does not violate principles of non-delegation with respect to its application to people who had committed their offenses prior to its enactment.
Yunus v. Robinson (S.D.N.Y. 2019)
Federal trial court in Southern District of New York granting preliminary injunction halting imposition of sex offense registry and parole requirements in case of plaintiff who committed no sexual offense.
United States v. Carson (8th Cir. 2019)
8th Circuit opinion affirming imposition of social media-related restrictions for individual on federal supervised release.
United States v. Eaglin (2nd Cir. 2019)
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision reversing trial court imposing internet ban and prohibition on viewing pornography as substantively unreasonable conditions of federal supervised release.
Doe v. Dep’t of Public Safety (Alaska 2019)
Alaska Supreme Court opinion holding that requiring sex offense registration without providing individuals with an opportunity to rebut a presumption of dangerousness violated state constitutional Due Process protections regarding privacy.
United States v. Templin (D. Mont. 2019)
Federal trial court in Montana holding that while the court had the authority to terminate defendant’s obligation to register as a sex offender under federal law, he would have to seek relief in state court to deregister under Montana’s laws.Mon
State v. Kirby (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)
Indiana Court of Appeals holding that change in laws that precluded father who was required to register as a sex offender from attending son’s school activities was not unconstitutional as applied.
People v. Diaz (N.Y. 2018)
New York Court of Appeals holding that individual who was not a “sex offender” in another state, but nevertheless required to register there, did not have to register in New York state.
People ex rel Negron v. Superintendent (N.Y. App. Div. 3rd 2019)
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, holding that SARA-related housing restrictions did not apply to individual who was serving a sentence for a non-sexual offense.
Mohamed v. Holder (4th Cir. 2014)
4th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that failing to register as a sex offender does not constitute a “crime involving moral turpitude” for immigration and removal purposes.
Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Board (Mass. 2014)
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts holding that amendments to law altering classification could not constitutionally apply retroactively to certain individuals who were classified as “level two” offenders prior to enactment.
Gonzalez v. Duncan (9th Cir. 2008)
9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversing the denial of an Eighth Amendment challenge to a “third strike” California sentence for failing to register as a sex offender.
Meza v. Livingston (5th Cir. 2010)
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming that sex offender registration implicates a protected liberty interest and that Due Process is violated when someone not convicted of a sex offense is required to register as a sex offender without a hearing and other protections.
Meredith v. Stein (E.D. N.C. 2019)
Federal trial court in North Carolina Judgment and Consent Order precluding the registration of an individual convicted of out-of-state without an opportunity to be heard.
McKune v. Lile (2002)
United States Supreme Court opinion holding that consequences that stemmed from failing to comply with treatment program were not so severe as to violate the Fifth Amendment.
Doe v. Rausch (E.D. Tenn. 2019)
Eastern District of Tennessee federal trial court holding that 2014 amendment to Tennessee’s SORA violated the Ex Post Facto clause.
Fushek v. State (Az. 2008)
Arizona Supreme Court opinion finding that state constitution entitled defendant charged with misdemeanors to a jury trial, where potential existed for sex offense registration.
Farmer v. Swearingen (N.D. Fla 2016)
Florida federal trial court dismissing complaint alleging that Florida’s practice of perpetual registration of extraterritorial registrants was unconstitutional.
Doe v. Virginia State Police (4th Cir. 2013)
4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of civil rights complaint challenging’s Doe’s reclassification as a sexually violent offender on standing, ripeness, and Procedural Due Process grounds.
Doe v. State (Alaska 2008)
Alaska Supreme Court Opinion finding, on statute constitutional grounds, that its sex offense registration scheme violated the prohibition on retroactive punishments.
Doe v. O’Donnell (N.Y. App. Div. 3d. 2011)
New York Appellate Division affirming the decision of a trial court dismissing an administrative appeal wherein a former New York resident was required to continue registering as a sex offender in New York.
Doe v. Jindal (E.D. La. 2015)
Federal trial court in Louisiana dismissing a lawsuit alleging violations of Due Process and Equal Protection based on treatment of out of state conviction.
Connecticut Dept Public Safety v. Doe (2003)
United States Supreme Court Opinion holding that individuals required to register as sex offenders are not entitled to a hearing prior to registration to determine dangerousness, as dangerousness was not relevant to the statutory scheme.
Commonwealth v. Thompson (Ky. 2018)
Kentucky Supreme Court opinion finding that failure to advise as to sex offense registration in the context of a guilty plea constitutes deficient performance under the Sixth Amendment.
Commonwealth v. Wilmer (Mass. 2018)
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversing a decision of the trial court which found that two convictions arising from the same proceeding required sex offense registration.
Doe v. Toelke (Mo. 2012)
Missouri Supreme Court opinion reversing a state trial court finding that Missouri’s SORA violated as-applied ex post facto prohibitions.
Lacy v. Butts (7th Cir. 2019)
7th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that Indiana’s treatment program for people incarcerated for a sex offense violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.